[Menandore]

what do you mean by 'education'? Are you trying to suggest that readin scifi and spending time on this site means we are well educated? I don't know if there's really much evidence for that. Although I think there was a poll about that in the Inn a while back so perhaps if you're really bored you could combine the two results

Plus what cause said.

[GardenGnome]

Allthough there are several points in your post we can use to unravel it all, what caught my eye was your claim that we are above average intelligent.

How do you quanitfy intelligence?
How do you measure it?
How do you know anything at all about the "intelligence" of your co-posters?

Claiming that we must be better than others, in any way, because we belong to this forum or read SE's books, is extremely selfdilusional, and only serves to make you feel better about yourself. It's inherent to every human being, to believe that you are special, to believe that you are better than the rest. For example, look at couples. I'm taking this from memory, but surveys show that 95% of all couples things their relationship is better than their friends. Equally, a survey about morals shows that everyone believe they are really great, have great morals. However, everyone scores their friends rather low...

I'm not certain if you are being serious. Are you?

[RodeoRanch]

D Man;151075 said:

Its safe to say we're all well educated, above average intelligence,

Yes...obviously. Except for the Brits.


But seriously, very interesting thread.

[Dolorous Menhir]

I don't know - if I was to set down two statements:

1. People who read Steven Erikson and post about it here are more intelligent than the average in society

&

2. People who read Steven Erikson and post about it here are less intelligent than the average in society

I would certainly lean towards 1 being true.

And although I have no evidence to support it, I think higher levels of education are clearly linked to lower levels of religiosity. Members of this board appear to be disproportionately literate, college educated people, and it's no coincidence that the proportions of religious persuasion are thus disproportionately weighted towards non-belief.

[GardenGnome]

I agree with Dolorous' statements. But it's only belief. That doesn't make it true, so it's still all bs.

I'd say we're pretty average intelligent, by the way.

[D Man]

I just had a really long post typed addressing everyones comments (bar rodeos, but thanks for chipping in anyway mate).

I got a 404 when I tried to post it. I'm annoyed now, so I'll comment later.

[RodeoRanch]

I had a conversation the other day with a pretty lass.

We got to talking about religion, for some odd reason. Anyways, I casually let it slip that I'm atheist and she gave one helluva frosty look and announced that atheists were the most arrogant people around because they obviously thought everyone else (ie. those who believe in a religion) was wrong and therefore stupid.

After I picked my jaw off the ground, I just swiftly changed the topic to hockey and was back on safe ground. But no nookie. Damn.

But it was an odd thing. I don't believe in a god and I certainly think that religion in general is a load of hokum. Yet I don't see a dichotomy between thinking religion is bunk and thinking a believer is stupid. Obviously this chick saw them as entwined and I suppose there's some merit to her line of thinking. I mean, if you believe in Christianity, that underlays your entire view of reality and the universe. If I think you're religion is silly, does that neccessarily mean I think you're entire view of reality is silly?

Strange thing and I'm just rambling.

[Wiggles]

She probably wouldnt have been any good in bed anyway. Speaking sadly from experience.

If you really want, you could try lying to (another) girl about your beliefs and see how far it gets you, or how long until she figures it out. If you can top 4 months, you are da maaaaaaaan.

And it pretty much does mean you think they are an idiot if you think their beliefs are stupid or silly or laughably ridiculous. Its just how it goes...

[Menandore]

That's funny actually cos in my experience it's often the other way around. I have found a lot of christians are very smug and arrogant because they have found god and therefore their life is better than yours cos you haven't been saved Of course I realise this isn't always true but it is in some cases. I guess what she's saying is probably true in some cases too but I can say as an atheist, I don't understand why people believe in god. I have tried and tried and I just can't get my head round it but I don't automatically assume they believe cos they're stupid. I do however think she's a dumb bitch for thinking she can apply that stereotype to all atheists.

[D Man]

Ok, problem fixed. A quite different set of points and statements, though: I hate to type things twice. Shame.

GA: Education is pretty obvious. Do I really have to explain what it is? Back to school with you!

GG: Measurement and quantification are the same thing and IQ is your answer, of course. Its clumsy but it pretty much works (its not as exact as it looks, but its never wildly out: a very intelligent person is never going to get <75, unless they...anti-cheat and give wrong answers intentionally, and a very stupid person never >125, for example)

And I never said we were better, and never would. I said more intelligent. One has nothing to do with the other. My post didnt have a single value statement in it (bar allusion to the economic status of PC owners and the freedom of the rich to pursue education and frivilous posting on the internet).

And self-delusion has nowt to do with this. I know myself well enough, thank you. This is about you, not me. Well, so far its 1/49th about me. There are clear reasons for me stating that people on these boards, and this room in particular, are more intelligent than average (and my personal experience of debating with you all, having one of my points shot between the eyes in the next post, for example, is consistent with that).

I really dont see that the connection between reading for pleasure and intelligence has to be fleshed out (asside from anything else I did so quite exhaustatively in my lost post and cant be bothered). Some things are pretty obvious. It doesnt necesarrily follow that if youre intelligent you read a lot, or that you have to read a lot to be intelligent, but if you read a lot then the chances are good that you are intelligent, and if you're on an authors webiste the chances are good that you read a lot.

Plus we are all sitting at home, reading a thread in a religious duscission forum. That narrows the group that voted down to those that like to discuss abstract concepts, or at least lurk and read the debates, as well as read in general. I'd say that theres a higher chance the regulars in 'religion' and 'discussions' are more intelligent than average even if people that read regularly arent.

Wiggles, GA and rodeo: I'm not trying to say that theres a direct causal "If __ Then" link between religiosity and intelligence. I do think that a religious person of any sort has a silly view of the world, not entirely, but in great part, but certainly not that they're automatically stupid.

I dont like the way the language here is going: its getting to close to the 'if - then' type so I'd just like to clarify at this point: the vast majority of my argument is statistical or asociative, and I've carefully qualified the language to remove any if-then statements of the type "if youre religious you must be stupid", because thats not true and its not what I'm getting at. I'm sure everyone agrees with that, so can we avoid taking the discussion that way please, people: it'll only end in tears!

In point of fact several of the most intelligent people I know, or have ever met, are devout christians. One of thems even a young-earth creationist. The rationalisations and double-thinks they come up with to argue with and maintain their beliefs are particularly deviously effective because they're so clever (and it makes debating with them a lot of fun!).

So, to restate the point (remember what the point was? It wasnt that fantasy readers are all braniacs, I hope that bee is out of your bonnet now): Education and higher socio-economic status in global context decreases your chances of being religious.

Additionally, were you to adopt a religion, the chances are very good that itll be the one where you live, the one your parents had, which rather strongly points to religion being a set of mythologies and practices we teach children, and are carried into adulthood, and so posing the question: whats so divine about that? Anyone can indoctrinate a child.
(note qualified language, this isnt a proof, just part of the mountain of evidence).

And if people dont like the statement that heavy readers that visit a religious debate forum are probably of above average intelligence, on average....then...errr...I dunno what to tell you. Dont put yourself down!...?? Here, take this, just for a laugh, and if enough people take it it'll be a nice little test for the "....more intelligent" thing...stick 'iq test' in google and you get http://uk.tickle.com/test/iq.html (I took ti to check it doesnt ask for your card details or pester you for anything before it gives you the result: just an ad to skip. I got 138, but its 10 to 2 here am I am pretty tired ). Go for it!

[councilor]

agnostic/athiest - everything is just a random bunch of stuff. religion great fun to debate about it, but at it's core irrlevant.

[caladanbrood]

Urg. I also had a long reply written out, only to lose it:mad:

Anyway D Man, I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it's a fair conclusion to come to. Firstly, 50 votes doesn't even constitute one fortieth of the members on this board alone (though that statistic isn't entirely accurate, because we do get quite a high number of spam accounts - let's say it's one thirtieth). And malazanempire is tiny compared to a lot of other fantasy book forums. (Westeros has 5,481; Sffworld has 10,000; Chronicles Network has 16,039) Now, as flattering as it is to think we're the elite of the web's users, intelligence-wise, i don't think anyone's really kidding themselves. It's certainly true we have some very intelligent people on the boards, but it's equally true that we have some idiots. Maybe it is true that there is a higher average intelligence that normal here, but theres no way of proving that. Especially from internet IQ tests, which are notoriously unreliable. I got 150, iirc, on the tickle test last term, when a mate of mine challenged me to prove I was cleverer than him (I don't know why either - maybe he was insecure), and thats the highest score you can get on it. Now, I know for a fact that my IQ is 138, because I went for loads of tests as a kid, when they thought I was dyslexic, and IQ is one of the things they test for, apparently. So it's pretty easy to see that those tests are pretty pointless.

Let's take another look at the poll, and see what other "conclusions" we can come to... there is only 1 muslim vote. Does this mean that muslims are poorer and less well educated than, say, agnostics? Of course it doesn't. What it does suggest is that the forum membership is not well represented in predominately muslim countries, which is itself a reasonably obvious fact from skimming through the introduction thread, or looking at people's locations, or from the fact that Erikson is only published in Europe, Russia, North America and Australia.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're looking at the poll the wrong way around. What it tells you about is the likelihood of joining an Erikson forum for people of different religious beliefs, but nothing about those belief groups themselves, as the sample size is simply too small.

And I'm gonna copy-paste this post before I submit it, just in case;)

[Dr Trouble]

I thought I had already posted in here ... weird.

I am a Christian, therefore I am better then all of you.

I love stereotypes.

[Tsundoku]

Zale;150223 said:

I was raised a Protestant, but my parents (well my mother, I imagine my dad doesn't give a flying one about religion) did it in an open way so that I could think about these things for myself rather than be swamped in doctrine.

I usually say I'm still at the "haven't made my mind up yet" stage. It has been pointed out to me that the Bible is occasionally self-contradictory, is likely to be full of translation errors (in some editions, "thou shalt not kill" is "thou shalt not murder" - severely less restrictive!) and thus probably not the literal word of God. I really dislike the way religion is organised into large get-together-and-say-stupid-words-together sessions. It's too full of ritual to actually mean anything. Worship should be personal. You're meant to have a personal relationship with God, right?

I also don't approve of having to appeal to a higher moral authority. Why can't you make your own judgements and be willing to accept the consequences of them? I appreciate the Bible (or whatever holy book) laying down some moral guidelines which are wholly good for the society, but I take objection at the "because God says so, now shut up and sit on your hands" part.

However, some of the things I've seen in the sciency world make me somewhat reluctant to entirely reject the possibility of some kind of God (protein synthesis anyone? Forget about wings & eyeballs, how the hell did THAT happen by itself?) and also I don't wanna reject anything without much more evidence than "there is no evidence".

I also quite like some of the philosophies found in Buddhism, but I don't know near enough about them to discuss them or want to make a lifestyle out of them.

I guess that makes me an agnostic then, a fence-sitter. I imagine I'll find out one day. Until then I'm not too bothered.

At risk of writing a "me too" post, Zale has covered it pretty well for me. Although my idea of any sort of conscious supreme being "God" is more like a very highly advanced alien scientist with all of us in their petri dish than an old dude with a white beard sitting on a cloud. I WANT to believe there is ... something ... beyond the merely physical, but as yet have insufficient proof to declare for it. And I'd probably tend more towards an approximation of "The Force" instead of conscious entities.

Baptised Holy Catholic Church of England (look it up)
Educated Roman Catholic schools
Some Buddhist inclinations, but also humanist as its more practical with lack of proof of anything "more".
Written down as "Jedi" on last 2 census forms, just because I could.

Cheers,

La Sombra, selfish

[Shinrei]

Lots of good answers to my question, thanks.

I also have an idle curiousity why there are no Jewish votes.

[Menandore]

Quote

GA: Education is pretty obvious. Do I really have to explain what it is? Back to school with you!

Obviously not that obvious or I wouldn't have had to ask. You said "all things being equal, education reduces the chances of one being religious significantly". What I would like to know is are you suggesting a (negative) correlation between level of education and religion? Like if someone has a phd they're less likely to be religious than someone with an undergrad degree who is less likely to be religious than someone who has completed high school etc? Or are you using the word 'educated' as a label to group together all people who have made it to university level education?

I think considering the fact that most posters come from Europe, N.America and Australia it's safe to say that most of us at least have a basic level of education. I don't think your above statement can really be tested without including in the sample people with little or no education at all.

There are other points I could make but basically it all boils down to the fact that you can't really draw any conclusions from this poll at all. To do so you would need to make assumptions that you have little or no evidence for. Eg. the assumption that the majority of users are PC owners. I would doubt that. So many people have access to computers at work, school and university it doesn't necessarily follow that being on this site means owning a computer. That kinda ties in with the assumption that the majority are "at least modestly affluent or from modestly affluent families". Where's your evidence for that?

Basically I am agreeing with brood here.

[Tiste Simeon]

Shinrei no Shintai said:

I'd be curious to see if our poll numbers above would reflect general fantasy reading audiences. It's good to see that we have Christians here who don't believe Erikson and Harry Potter are the path to satan.

Well I know people who don't like the books and won't read them - my mother for one. But she hasn't stopped myself nor my younger brothers from reading them.

Trouble said:

I am a Christian, therefore I am better then all of you.

Hey! Me too! Excellent!

Dolorous Menhir said:

I don't know - if I was to set down two statements:

1. People who read Steven Erikson and post about it here are more intelligent than the average in society

&

2. People who read Steven Erikson and post about it here are less intelligent than the average in society

I would certainly lean towards 1 being true.

Yeah. Let's go with that.

Dolorous Menhir said:

And although I have no evidence to support it, I think higher levels of education are clearly linked to lower levels of religiosity. Members of this board appear to be disproportionately literate, college educated people, and it's no coincidence that the proportions of religious persuasion are thus disproportionately weighted towards non-belief.

While I do agree with that to an extent, I wouldn say that there are many exceptions to the rule. Me for example.

caladanbrood said:

It's certainly true we have some very intelligent people on the boards, but it's equally true that we have some idiots.

Wait, which one do I come under?

[Satan]

Shinrei no Shintai;151160 said:

Lots of good answers to my question, thanks.

I also have an idle curiousity why there are no Jewish votes.

Because, despite being categorised as a world religion, there are very few practising jews in this world. Their numbers are inflated, I think, by the connection that is usually made by the world between the religion and the people.

Goddess Aurora;151161 said:

Obviously not that obvious or I wouldn't have had to ask. You said "all things being equal, education reduces the chances of one being religious significantly". What I would like to know is are you suggesting a (negative) correlation between level of education and religion? Like if someone has a phd they're less likely to be religious than someone with an undergrad degree who is less likely to be religious than someone who has completed high school etc? Or are you using the word 'educated' as a label to group together all people who have made it to university level education?

I think considering the fact that most posters come from Europe, N.America and Australia it's safe to say that most of us at least have a basic level of education. I don't think your above statement can really be tested without including in the sample people with little or no education at all.

Statistics show that people of higher education more often categorise themselves as non-believers (atheist, agnostics, etc.) than people with lower levels of eduacation (see http://en.wikipedia....nd_intelligence, for an brief explenation of a sample test in USA). I personally refute that the level of religiosity of an individual has any direct relationship with the level of intelligence shown in that same individual, however. One, because I don't think you can say anything about intelligence just on the basis of education level. Sociological, psychological and economical factors has just as much to do with the level of education a person gets as the level of intelligence this person has. I am a prime example of this as I will most likely go on to take my MA after my bacheolor, yet I am of an average IQ in tests (consistent through several different tests). In other words, it's a giant jump to equal education level with intelligence (especially IQ).

Two, the statistics does not say anything about the general trends of a certain intelligence level, just about the trends of a certain educational level. In other words, it stupid to presume that all the intelligent people automatically enroll for higher education (for the same reasons mentioned above: sociological, psychological and economical). As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, there is little research relating the IQ level to religiosity.

And three, the sociological enviorment at universities and colleges is very non-religious (pretty much the only thing you can assume from those statistics talked about above), and this will invariably influence the beliefs of anyone who spends an extended amount of time there. This non-religious enviroment does not necessarily come from a general level of higher intelligence. It is just as possible that it is the remenant from the enlightenment period and its secularisation.

[Agraba]

I have an alternate explanation to the whole religion = 1/intelligence...

Though I was atheist long before reading SE, it seems to me that his series just really seeems to discourage the idea of religion, to the point that I just naturally assumed that SE is an atheist himself. You have him constantly referring to the fact that an Elder God is only as powerful as how strongly he's worshipped (which is analogous to every religion's god in our world, including the Christian god). Then there's the fact that so many characters view complete abyss or an end to consciousness with death as a fate that's not so bad, or even quite nice, when an average religious person cannot stand the idea of not being conscious after they die.

I'm wondering how many people here were converted to atheism by the Malaz series.

Also, I doubt the accuracy of the standard religion polls in wikipedia. I'm almost certainly listed as a jew in that, but I voted atheist.

[amphibian]

How do I view the poll results by member ballots so I can target non-believers with eloquent pamphlets and glorious sermons?